Re: LPPL, take 2
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> - 5.a.2. That's the Clause of Contention, so read it carefully. I
> seem to have at least some consensus on it, judging from the feedback so
> far; its provenance can be seen in this message and the follow-ups:
I'm close on this one. "does not identify itself as unmodified in any
way" is harder for me to understand than "identifies itself as modified".
Does "This is LaTeX-format, unmodified" followed a few lines later by
"this is foo, modified by someguy" qualify? As written, I'd think this
infringes.
If the initial LaTeX-format must be modified in order to make certain
modifications to an LPPL-licensed module, it's hard for me to see this as
a free license.
> - 5b. Mark, you were nervous about this, but I don't see an
> alternative or clarification in the discussion. Are you satisfied, or
> is there still some work to do?
I think my objection to 5b boils down to the fact that it doesn't
distinguish between API strings and user-copyright strings. As long as
the package contains no must-modify strings which are part of the
container's API, I don't object. I'd strongly prefer this were clarified
in the license.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
Reply to: